After months of rumour and speculation, Disney CEO Bob Iger has confirmed that its production and release of Star Wars movies will be scaled back.

Iger admitted that he had made a mistake, and that there had been “too much, too fast”, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, after it put him at the top of its list of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

He added: “You can expect some slowdown … we’re going to be a little bit more careful about volume and timing.”

Disney had received considerable criticism after the disappointing box-office performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story, the second of the “anthology” spinoffs designed to run alongside the core main “Episode” narratives and to alternate with them in the release schedules. Solo had a troubled production history, during which the directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were replaced by Ron Howard, and was released in May 2018, only six months after Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Solo’s box office figures were considerably poorer than those of Rogue One, the previous Star Wars “anthology” spinoff from 2016, and is on course to become the first film in the franchise to lose money.The suggestion is that Disney failed to anticipate “franchise fatigue”.

Iger did not elaborate on the future of the two spinoffs believed to be in development – a Boba Fett film to be directed by James Mangold and an Obi-Wan Kenobi film with Stephen Daldry rumoured to direct – but did confirm that Game of Thrones creators David Benioff and DB Weiss “are developing [Star Wars] sagas of their own”.

However, Iger’s comments appear to back up the supposition that Disney and Lucasfilm will be concentrating on the main episodes, and he confirmed that JJ Abrams “is busy making [Episode] IX”. Abrams’ as yet untitled film is due for release in December 2019.

Maybe there was “too much, too fast”, but I don't think that is their biggest problem.They alienated much of their fan base with characters/plots that were not in keeping with the origins of the Star Wars theme.They took some of the original/most beloved characters (Luke Skywalker) and marginalized them/made them look silly.To my undestanding, they took a concept (The Force) that supposedly took characters (Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, etc) many many years to master, and had some chick walk into the last movie (I think, I didn't watch it) and pick it up like it was child's play.

Simply making fewer installments with longer spaces between them isn't going to fix their problem with the Star Wars franchise.

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Decent storytelling and respect for what came before would smooth over many grievances, I think. Refer to first sentence above, minus the sarcasm, and ponder it in the boardroom, Disney.

And if KK wants to make her own Woke, Super-Feminist, Ultimately Non-Profitable Sci-Fi saga then by all means, make one. Please refrain from using an established, beloved and storied franchise as your own personal social experiment.

And stop shitting on a large chunk of your core fans...all those white people.

You wanna make the green, respect the white. Simple as that.

Even economics guru Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could probably (eventually) figure that one out.

_________________

The bedfellows politics made are never strange. It only seems that way to those who have not watched the courtship.

Trolls and bots were, indeed, part of Bay’s research. But his study further concludes that much of the backlash was driven by political opportunism from the American alt-right, particularly members of that movement who were deeply involved in 2014’s anti-feminist and proto-alt-right Gamergate movement in the video game community.

Meanwhile, it found that while many believe the dominant response to The Last Jedi was overwhelmingly negative, the preponderance of bots and trolls on social media only made it seem that way. In reality, most viewers of the film seem to have liked it. (Vox’s sister site, Polygon, has more.)

But what Bay’s study really got me thinking about was how strange it was that Russian agents would focus on Star Wars, of all things, in what seems to be a campaign to spread dissension throughout America, dating back to before the 2016 election. Whether or not a Star Wars movie is good or bad has little bearing on the overall twists and turns of global geopolitics, and yet here was evidence that somebody in Russia sure disagreed.

Maybe the Russian bots that Bay identified are all extra-governmental, built by trolls with spare time on their hands and a grudge against Lucasfilm. Or maybe Bay’s findings are yet another example of how thoroughly Russian intelligence has zeroed in on the idea that white nationalism is central to driving a wedge into American society.

If the latter is true, then what’s most unnerving about Russia’s intelligence strategy and its connection to Star Wars isn’t what that strategy says about Russia, but what it says about us.

The Gamergate era and the rise of “fandamentalism”

Whomever you believe is behind movements like Gamergate and the pushback against The Last Jedi, what they reveal about America in the 2010s feels a little hard to swallow at first: At this point in history, a lot of us — and especially a lot of young, white men — are centering their identities and their senses of right and wrong on pop culture artifacts, sometimes with a near-religious zealotry. Call it “fandamentalism.”

However, it’s not as though there aren’t ample examples within more progressive communities as well. There is undoubtedly an increased desire among consumers to see massive movie franchises and other pop culture behemoths reflect the diversity of the world, not only because representation matters (and it does) but also because it creates a kind of virtue by proxy: I like this thing that makes the right progressive moves, and therefore, I am a good person.

All the while, massive entertainment companies turn representation and inclusion into excuses to make more money. That they’ve increasingly bet on diversity being the best way to rake in lots of cash is heartening for progressives in the sense that the entertainment companies believe that progressive causes are the “winners” of these crude economics. But there’s an empty cynicism to their choices all the same; a company like Disney sees diversity as a worthy goal second and a potential money machine first.

In and of itself, the idea of looking for meaning and a reflection of one’s own life in pop culture is perfectly fine. I would even argue that it’s the first step toward digging deeper into a work of art, because it leads us down a path of critical thought and invigorating discussion with friends — and maybe even a little bit of self-examination.

But here’s where things have flipped on their ear in the 2010s: Many fans of a work aren’t just looking for meaning in the work itself, but for the work to impart meaning upon them. Too often, they ask pop culture to fill the role that religion, philosophy, or psychology once did.

But pop culture is never going to be an easy fit for that particular task, because much of it is too dedicated to the pursuit of distraction — a worthy goal, but not one that’s going to give many people a better understanding of themselves, or a higher purpose.

And while I think there’s a lot of value in considering pop culture on a level deeper than, “I liked it!” (which is literally part of my job), the danger of fandamentalism comes from the ways in which it turns some pop culture properties into a belief system, into something so central to one’s identity that it becomes inextricable from the self. Once that happens, if somebody criticizes, say, “gamer culture,” it ends up feeling less like pop culture criticism and more like bigotry or bullying to the people who consider themselves part of gamer culture. It’s fandom as religion.

That’s what makes our online debates about pop culture susceptible to outside interference — and it’s why Gamergate has always explained the rise of Donald Trump and the divisiveness of the 2016 election better than almost anything else.

The way Russia targets American voters is deeply cynical about what drives us — but also, evidently, accurate

What’s been eerily notable about the last several years in American political discourse is how thoroughly everything about being a Republican or Democrat now flows through the model of fandom. Many people have equated politics fandom with sports fandom — you have a political “team” you root for, and you get upset when the other guys win — but I think pop culture is almost more useful as a lens.

Pop culture, after all, is largely built around stories, and stories have always been a way that we organize our various moral principles and ideas about the universe. The same is true of politics, in which a party’s platform is meant to stand in for a whole virtue system. No matter which party you support, it’s unlikely you support all of its policies, or even know that much about all of them. You probably have a handful of issues that you consider most important, then pick the party that most closely aligns with your beliefs on them.

Stories are also the likely reason for why pop culture has taken on a sort of religious significance to so many: Religion, too, is a series of stories meant to provide moral guidance and the like. But the underlying goal of religion is to take a stab at pondering or even providing answers to some of the deepest questions about the universe, and the best pop culture — the best art, period — is rarely so didactic. It finds more fascination with the process of questioning than it does any of the answers it might arrive at. Art and religion swim in the same pool, to be sure, but they practice different strokes.

Trolls and bots were, indeed, part of Bay’s research. But his study further concludes that much of the backlash was driven by political opportunism from the American alt-right, particularly members of that movement who were deeply involved in 2014’s anti-feminist and proto-alt-right Gamergate movement in the video game community.

What an idiotic assessment.

The Star Wars franchise was very successful, and largely stuck to a core group of characters and plot involving the development of those characters.

Then they start tinkering with the characters and plots and fans react accordingly.

If the author thinks that Russian trolling had such a large impact on 2014 Gamergate, then how would he account for the fact that the 2015 Star Wars installment, “The Force Awakens” (2015), is the 2nd highest earning installment of the franchise (adjusted for inflation)?The highest earning installment was the first installment “Star Wars: A New Hope” (1977).

The first three installments are ranked 1, 3 and 4 in the series for earnings (adjusted for inflation).

Trolls and bots were, indeed, part of Bay’s research. But his study further concludes that much of the backlash was driven by political opportunism from the American alt-right, particularly members of that movement who were deeply involved in 2014’s anti-feminist and proto-alt-right Gamergate movement in the video game community.

What an idiotic assessment.

The Star Wars franchise was very successful, and largely stuck to a core group of characters and plot involving the development of those characters.

Then they start tinkering with the characters and plots and fans react accordingly.

If the author thinks that Russian trolling had such a large impact on 2014 Gamergate, then how would he account for the fact that the 2015 Star Wars installment, “The Force Awakens” (2015), is the 2nd highest earning installment of the franchise (adjusted for inflation)?The highest earning installment was the first installment “Star Wars: A New Hope” (1977).

The first three installments are ranked 1, 3 and 4 in the series for earnings (adjusted for inflation).

geezusispan1 week agoJust another whiny man.. Men have led us to the precipice of extinction, always promoting wars and destruction of the environment. Why not give the women a chance?﻿

A response I made to the comment

Quote:

"Precipice of extinction?" Given that there are more of us today than at any time in our history, and that our global species-typical life expectancy and standards of living are better today than at any time in human history, that statement is just about the most inaccurate you could possibly have chosen to make. Many aspects of the natural environment are in bad shape, but humanity is just about as far from extinction as it has been in tens of thousands of years.

Certainly the last century was an extremely destructive one; but if it was the "Patriarchs" who caused those wars (and indeed, it seems fair to point out that 90% of the major decision makers of national and international policy prior to about 1950 WERE male, if not "Patriarchal") then one must acknowledge that it was also the "Patriarchs" who brought the relative peace and prosperity of the Cold War era as well, facts which refute your next use of hyperboly "always promoting wars and destruction." If "always" promoting wars and destruction were the prevailing norms for the "Patriarchs" who continued to be the overwhelming majority of decision makers through at least 1950 (if not later) then why is it that the tremendous destructive power of the nuclear age has never been unleashed?

We are constantly told that females and women remain underrepresented and disempowered right up to the present (arguments which lack the empirical solidity of blaming the century of war and the subsequent peace on males) and thus the allusion to a justification for the symbolism of "replacing" the Patriarch with the Matriarch when you say "Why not give the women a chance?" There are of course some shreds of truth in this general theme; throughout most of post-Neolithic human history, females and women have been largely denied access to equality, and community-power. In many cases, this extended (and in many cases continues to extend) into forms of oppression and disempowerment even within the domestic realm. However, females are universally the mothers of all children, and have been throughout all of human experience, the parent with the most significant bonds with children and the most significant influences on early child development. The variability in the roles played by mothers, fathers, other family members, and/or other community members at later stages of childhood is quite large when we consider the full panoply of social norms across human post-Neolithic cultural history. However, even with that said, females have played non-trivial roles in child development around the world for tens of thousands of years and right up to early adulthood.

All this to point out that: if the "men" have been so wicked and whiny throughout the ages, then how can we possibly give "the women," i.e., the mothers, both absolution of any guilt AND a universal sanction to "take over" for the "men?" The argument is so absurd as to be within the capacity of even a reasonable 10 year old to see its flimsiness and utter lack of pragmatic or salutary value; and yet, this seems to be precisely the sort of insipid, childish argument which so-called "feminists" wish to advance as their primary theme.

Openness, equality, equal-treatment and equal-opportunity, tolerance and acceptance of all socially generative and peaceful sex/gender/sexuality identities and values seems perfectly reasonable and an admirable agenda to advance. But no, that doesn't sound like what these "feminist" works of cinema actually mean to advance nor what apologists for it like you seem to be arguing for either.

Humanism, is the ONLY valid ideology when it comes to these matters. To the extent that a "feminism" or an "androgynism" or an "masculinism" (or an "individualism" for that matter) are indeed humanist, they are virtuous. But where any of them fail to be thorough humanism and instead show bias, favor, or discrimination for or against any region in the multi-dimensional space of human sex/sexuality/gender they are intolerable and should be argued against firmly.﻿

geezusispan1 week agoJust another whiny man.. Men have led us to the precipice of extinction, always promoting wars and destruction of the environment. Why not give the women a chance?﻿

A response I made to the comment

Quote:

"Precipice of extinction?" Given that there are more of us today than at any time in our history, and that our global species-typical life expectancy and standards of living are better today than at any time in human history, that statement is just about the most inaccurate you could possibly have chosen to make. Many aspects of the natural environment are in bad shape, but humanity is just about as far from extinction as it has been in tens of thousands of years.

Certainly the last century was an extremely destructive one; but if it was the "Patriarchs" who caused those wars (and indeed, it seems fair to point out that 90% of the major decision makers of national and international policy prior to about 1950 WERE male, if not "Patriarchal") then one must acknowledge that it was also the "Patriarchs" who brought the relative peace and prosperity of the Cold War era as well, facts which refute your next use of hyperboly "always promoting wars and destruction." If "always" promoting wars and destruction were the prevailing norms for the "Patriarchs" who continued to be the overwhelming majority of decision makers through at least 1950 (if not later) then why is it that the tremendous destructive power of the nuclear age has never been unleashed?

We are constantly told that females and women remain underrepresented and disempowered right up to the present (arguments which lack the empirical solidity of blaming the century of war and the subsequent peace on males) and thus the allusion to a justification for the symbolism of "replacing" the Patriarch with the Matriarch when you say "Why not give the women a chance?" There are of course some shreds of truth in this general theme; throughout most of post-Neolithic human history, females and women have been largely denied access to equality, and community-power. In many cases, this extended (and in many cases continues to extend) into forms of oppression and disempowerment even within the domestic realm. However, females are universally the mothers of all children, and have been throughout all of human experience, the parent with the most significant bonds with children and the most significant influences on early child development. The variability in the roles played by mothers, fathers, other family members, and/or other community members at later stages of childhood is quite large when we consider the full panoply of social norms across human post-Neolithic cultural history. However, even with that said, females have played non-trivial roles in child development around the world for tens of thousands of years and right up to early adulthood.

All this to point out that: if the "men" have been so wicked and whiny throughout the ages, then how can we possibly give "the women," i.e., the mothers, both absolution of any guilt AND a universal sanction to "take over" for the "men?" The argument is so absurd as to be within the capacity of even a reasonable 10 year old to see its flimsiness and utter lack of pragmatic or salutary value; and yet, this seems to be precisely the sort of insipid, childish argument which so-called "feminists" wish to advance as their primary theme.

Openness, equality, equal-treatment and equal-opportunity, tolerance and acceptance of all socially generative and peaceful sex/gender/sexuality identities and values seems perfectly reasonable and an admirable agenda to advance. But no, that doesn't sound like what these "feminist" works of cinema actually mean to advance nor what apologists for it like you seem to be arguing for either.

Humanism, is the ONLY valid ideology when it comes to these matters. To the extent that a "feminism" or an "androgynism" or an "masculinism" (or an "individualism" for that matter) are indeed humanist, they are virtuous. But where any of them fail to be thorough humanism and instead show bias, favor, or discrimination for or against any region in the multi-dimensional space of human sex/sexuality/gender they are intolerable and should be argued against firmly.﻿

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum